After thinking about it, I just don't see a way for someone to place a call to your phone number and have it automatically routed to your telephone provider's voicemail without your telephone provider's cooperation.
When an incoming call is routed to your telephone provider, your telephone provider is going to ring your phone, and will not connect the call to your voice mail unless the phone rejects the call (for cell calls), or the phone rings for a prescribed period of time.
This kind of harassment requires your telephone provider's cooperation. Where this is going, is that if this practice is blessed by FCCs, the telemarketers will offer money to telephone providers to allow them to call directly their customers' voicemails.
This needs to be publicized: should this actually happen, and one finds themselves on the receiving end of voicemail spam: complain to your telephone provider. If they play stupid, and they refuse to block the voicespam, fire them, and make sure explain to them why you are firing them.
If the folks at Mozilla are listening, this is a golden opportunity to score some brownie points.
It should be possible for a browser to detect when a click on an anchor tag gets intercepted by a javascript onclick that goes to a completely different URL, and for the browser to throw a big fat warning instead.
Of course, nobody would expect for Chrome to do anything like this, since Google depends on this hostile and abusive practice for generating ad click revenue. But I would think that this would be a value tool for blocking potential exploits, and a thumb in the eye of Google.
Can't really say much more than that: you certainly can. There's a trick to "navigating ageism": simply refuse to be a victim. You're only a victim of ageism if you give yourself the permission to be one.
I'm hitting 50 pretty soon. I'm old enough to fully acknowledge that I have no idea what would happen tomorrow, but I have a fairly high level of confidence that my career prospects are fairly bright, for the foreseeable future and until I retire. So I know that there are places to work where one's experience one acquires with age is an asset, and not a liability.
I fully acknowledge that ageism exists in plenty of places. But I am just as well confident that there are plenty of more places where ageism does not exist. The place where I work invests significant resources in actively recruiting and hiring young skulls full of mush from nearby institutions of higher learning. Every summer we hire a bunch of co-eds for interships. Quite a few of them inevitably end up interning with us for a few summers, then graduate, and get hired.
At the same time, this place is full of beards. Quite a few folks here -- both IT and business people -- going to hit their retirement before I do. When a naming contest was held to name the conference rooms in new office space, I jokingly suggested naming them after employees with beards -- with the largest conference rooms going to the longest beards. Although this didn't happen, if it did there would be no shortage of names to pick from.
So, although every day I wake up being fully prepared for that day to be my last day at work, I believe the chances of me getting fired because I'm too old are absolutely nil.
Even if I'm wrong, or even if I get canned for other reasons, I'll simply look for a job without wringing my hands, shedding crocodile tears, and claim to be a victim of ageism. I refuse to be a victim. I will simply go look for, and find a job. That's it. If I interview and don't get the job, it matters little why, my first priority would simply be to land the next interview. That's what I'm going to focus on, instead of flagellating myself and wondering if I didn't get the job because I'm too old.
And I actually think I would avoid those places in the first place, saving myself the trouble (note to Facebook's and Google's recruiters, please stop spamming my Gmail mailbox, thanks).
I actually think that having places that overtly discriminate against older workers is a good thing. I believe that ageism is not the real problem, but it's always a symptom of some other, more deeply rooted, fundamental problem with the company. Even if they did not discriminate on age, I wouldn't probably want to work for them anyway.
Thank you Mr. Edmunds, "the head of technology from the cybercrimes division of the U.K.'s National Crime Agency" for informing the citizens of the U.K. that their "head of technology from the cybercrimes of the U.K.'s National Crime Agency" is technically incompetent, and is utterly clueless on the subject matter he's blathering about.
There's nothing about SPF, Dmarc, or DKIM, that magically identifies the attached email as spam or not. There is no such tag in the email that identifies it as such. All that those technologies do is establish, in varying degrees of certainty, that the purported sender of the email is who it claims to be. Which, obviously, has nothing to do with spam.
As Benny Hill would've said: BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG deal...
More than half of the crap in my spam folder has DKIM headers. I have SPF validation turned on. More than three quarters of the spam in my folder passes SPF checks. That pretty much there makes Mr. Edmunds look like a bloody moron. The only fact that they establish is its proven sender's domain name.
SO FUCKING WHAT? Did someone drop this moron in his head, as a child, or what? Is it too much for that knucklehead to comprehend that anyone can register a new domain, establish valid DKIM and SPF keys, to authenticate the domain, that start spewing spam, non-stop, from it? And every last drop of that spam will pass every SPF, DKIM, and alphabet soup that he throws at it. It is true that some portion of the spam from hijacked and hacked zombies will fail SPF/DKIM validation. But this will fail, by far, to be the complete solution for spam, unlike what that knucklehead claims. Is this really so complicated to understand?
Turner was not "hiding in the bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas", as you implied. Did you watch the video?
Turner was plainly standing, out in the open, on a public sidewalk. He was clearly unarmed, and posed no threat. All he had was a camera, and all he was doing was filming.
It might be reasonable for the police to come out and try to talk to him. But do you believe that, under these circumstances, it was reasonable to handcuff him, throw him in a police car on a hot day, with the windows rolled up, supposedly based on some bogus law that the cops pulled out of their ass, right that very minute?
It is now beyond dispute that Turner did not violate any law. The appeals court has ruled that. Furthermore, the appeals court has ruled that Turner was arrested. This is not arguable, either. Did you read the court's decision? The court's decision is very reasonable, in that regard: when you get handcuffed, that means you are under arrest. Plain and simple. It is now an established fact, that Turner will no longer need to prove, when he goes back to the trial court (the appeals court reversed most of the trial court's decision, so the whole thing goes back for further legal proceedings). He was arrested by the cops. For standing on a public sidewalk, for filming a police station. Neither will Turner has to prove that he did not break any laws. That was a part of the appellate court's decision too. Of course, one never has to prove that, when being charged with a crime, but it is Turner who's suing the cops, claiming that he did not break any laws, so he had to prove that, and the appellate court now agreed with him.
But, going back to the subject matter at hand. Do you believe that the cops were in the right, arresting a man standing in plain sight, on a public sidewalk, completely unarmed, simply for filming a police station?
The first movie rightfully deserves to be preserved in the Library of Congress. It is part of the American culture, and history. But, having said that, I have a confession to make:
The movie simply has not aged well. The last time I watched it on DVD, a few years ago, I decided never to watch it again. Now, that I'm much older, the movie looks rather simplistic and rough; and I would rather remember the movie the way I saw it, with much younger eyes and a less crtitical brain. These days, Darth Vader's initial entrance makes him look like a cartoonish villain. Luke playing with a starfighter, in one of his first scenes, is cringe-worthy. Ditto for the scene where he drools over the hologram Leia. C3PO's stumbling around...just doesn't work for me the way it used to.
To state the obvious: the 4K version is nothing more than a pathetic, utterly pathetic money grab. And nothing more. That should be fairly obvious to anyone. I can't think of any possible value that four thousand pixels will bring to that movie. I just have a bad feeling about this...
How old is deltarpm?
I'm sure that deb packages must have something analogous.
The funny thing is there has been some chatter on fedora-devel about removing delta rpms. Supposedly it's no longer considered useful anymore. Don't recall what's the status on that.
They're dirt cheap. If you don't know what they are, they are one or two 16850 LI-ion cells, a mini-USB port, and a USB-A port. The mini-USB port is used to charge the cells in the powerbank, and then you can plug your gadgets into the USB-A port, to charge them later.
Use the powerbank to suck the power from a public port first, then plug in your devices. The downside is that the whole process takes longer. The upside is that all you're risking is blowing up your powerbank. That sucks, but as I said, they're dirt cheap, and you just get another one.
Many years ago I wrote a simple webmail server. My email address wasn't even on the login screen, just my company name. There have been more than one occasion over the years when some customer of an internet provider that used my webmail server needed technical support, and apparently managed to Google the company name, find my email address, and ask me for a password reset, or something along those lines...
Dunno if that could ever possibly happen, but consider the following scenario
1. A poorly administered ISP ignores the fact that it's infested with zombie DDOS proxies.
2. Google starts returning a static web page stating "Your internet provider is unable to reach Google, please contact your Internet provider for support." message, instead of their home page, for queries from that ISP's IP address ranges.
Probably just a pipe dream for a lazy Sunday afternoon.
According to http://smallbusiness.chron.com/profit-margin-supermarket-22467.html, your run of the mill grocery store has a profit margin of a whopping 1%. Can you explain to me how that's supposed to pay for increasing the wages of the majority of their workforce by 100%. Labor is the biggest cost of doing business, pretty much across the board.
All similar business in the same geographical area pay generally the same wages, and so have the same general costs of doing business. As such, any business that attempts to inflate their profit margins have really only one way to do so: by increasing the price of their products. But if they were to do so, they will be immediately underpriced by their area competitors. As such, profit margins of general businesses, not just grocery stores, but all general businesses, tend to be razor thin. They can only charge a bare minimum above the cost of their products, in order to stay in business.
And we're not talking about just your cashiers in the grocery store. The companies that run the trucks that deliver the goods to the store also have to raise their minimum wage too, and will also have to increase their costs to deliver goods, which gets passed down to the grocery stores, which will also have to increase their own prices on account of that too.
The janitorial services, that send their workers to the local businesses, to clean their toilets, will also have to increase their own minimum wages too. This also translates to their direct costs, which they have no choice but to pass down to the grocery store, as their customer, who will also have to increase their product prices on account of that too.
You can come up with a myriad of examples. Do you know who really ends up paying for the $15 minimum wage? You, the helpless consumer. Always.
There's an old term for all of this. It's called "trickle-down economics". Perhaps you've heard of it. Much derided by the radical left; perhaps the term was originally poorly chosen. A better name would've been "real life".
... or whatever it's actually called. I know that the left-wing movement to drive the minimum wage up to $15/hr has a catchy name of some kind, but I fail to recall it at the moment.
The only thing this movement demonstrates is the abject failure of the US public scrool system to teach young skulls full of mesh some basic economics. Instead, they come out believing that every filthy, greedy, business owner has a money printing press in the basement. Either that, or that the only way to force the bourgeoisie fatcat to pay the proletariat a fair share, is through minimum wage legislation.
Only a complete lack of understanding of basic principles of economics could result in anyone thinking that the only thing that will happen after raising the minimum wage to $15, is that everyone will be paid $15/hr. And that nothing else, whatsoever, will change. Everything will remain exactly as they are today, except that everyone will be making $15/hr, at least. Socialist utopia.
They'll be in for a shock once they figure out that business owners are not hiding a money printing press in the basement, that they could use to pay their entry-level workers $15/hr. They simply don't have the money, and no amount of radical, left-wing socialist propaganda is going to change that. No amount of protests will have any effect on that. The only thing that the Mr. Store Owner could possibly do, at that point, is either fire their workers, or raise their prices. There are no other options. A lot of good will the $15/hr minimum wage will do for them, when they're not the ones being employed, or when a loaf bread costs $11, and a gallon of milk costs $8. But, hey, they're making a living wage now!
... New exam rule: no wearing of wristwatches, of any kind, while taking an exam. You want to know the time left? See this big clock on the wall. This solution seems too obvious. Am I missing something?
Scratching my head here. What's the conclusion to be drawn, from these experiments? That if we don't want to gain weight, we should all move to Florida?
It seems like the only linked article is relevant to the Slashdot story immediately preceding this one...
Must be the new owners of Slashdot, working hard to correct the persistent problem the prior owners with duplicate stories getting posted, all the time. Now, the duplicate links will get posted in completely different stories, going forward!
Google had no need for Postini. Google's own spam filtering in Gmail is pretty good. Probably as best as spam filtering could be, under the circumstances. So that's one elephant in the room.
The other elephant in the room is Microsoft, with Hotmail, or Office 365, or whatever it's called these days. I don't have any firsthand exposure to that service, but from what I hear its built-in spam filtering is also fairly good.
Big email providers like that have no need to use an external, third party spam filtering service, since they have the technology, and the scale, to implement it in house. Organizations that outsource their email service to these elephants get spam filtering as part of their service and, again, have little need for a third party service.
About the only likely market for third party spam filtering services would be small to mid-range ISPs or organizations that want to run their E-mail in house. They wouldn't typically have the in-house technology to implement spam filtering, and would rely on a third party. Seems like a fairly small market to me, and with E-mail generally on a slow, steady decline there doesn't seem to be a lot of market opportunities here, for third party spam filtering services.
POP3 is a simple, basic email download protocol. Shouldn't take more than a few hours to write one from scratch. The specs are easiky available, and will serve as a good introduction to writing free software based on Internet standards.
And how exactly did you determine the state of their mind, and what they do or do not know?
"Gee, all of a sudden my mail server acquires this mysterious configuration setting that rejects mail from all IP addresses on this particular blacklist. I have absolutely no idea where it came from..."
My (strong) bet is that, if you are using any kind of blacklisting software you don't really know who are you blocking and why.
So, you think you know more about someone who employs blacklisting, then they themselves. There's a word for that too. Actually two words: "arrogant elitism". You think you're smarter than everyone else, and that you know more about blacklists then the individual organizations who use them. That is, of course, a height of arrogance.
No, I'm afraid you're not smarter than everyone else. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Of course yes, why the hell go throw the worries of having a legal system and legal forces to enact it when we can have some random vigilante telling apart what can and cannot be done.
This phenomenon is called "free speech", perhaps you've heard of it. Anyone is free to say, on their web site, whether a particular sender's email should be accepted or rejected, and why. And it goes without saying that everyone else is free to either agree, or disagree and continue to use their own internal policy for email acceptance or rejectance.
I have found that these cries of vigilantism tend to come from those who have a peculiar belief that these so-called vigilantes have somehow hacked into million of email servers worldwide, hijacked them, and reconfigured them to reject email from the targets of those vigilantes' wrath. This is, of course, utter horseshit. The individual owners and operators of all those millions of email servers have specifically and intentionally configured their mail servers to follow the recommended mail acceptance policy of their chosen third-party blacklist. Nobody held a gun to their head, and forced them to do so. They own their email servers. They pay their electricity and bandwidth bills, and they have every right to configure them in whatever way makes them happy.
And the so-called "legal system" is 100% behind them. Fortunately, at least in the Western world, private property rights still enjoy 100% backing of the legal system. I have never read of any legal decision, that survived an appeal, which forced the owner of the email server to accept or reject email from anyone they wish, for whatever reason pleases them, and on whatever it was based on. Quite the opposite -- there's actually established case law that determined that privately-owned Internet providers are free to blacklist anyone, and for any reason, which includes third-party blacklists, which I'll be happy to cite.
That is the cold, hard truth: nobody has a civil right to email anyone, and every other privately-owned email server operator is free to refuse to accept email from anyone, for any reason. Whether it was due to their own decision, or by delegating this decision to a third-party blacklist. That delegation, after all, is still their own decision to make. Like I said, it is their email server, and they have full control of it. And it they decide to delegate some control over their email server to a third party, they are 100% within their rights to do so. And neither you, nor any other spamming parasite, can do anything about it.
Slashdot Mirror
After thinking about it, I just don't see a way for someone to place a call to your phone number and have it automatically routed to your telephone provider's voicemail without your telephone provider's cooperation.
When an incoming call is routed to your telephone provider, your telephone provider is going to ring your phone, and will not connect the call to your voice mail unless the phone rejects the call (for cell calls), or the phone rings for a prescribed period of time.
This kind of harassment requires your telephone provider's cooperation. Where this is going, is that if this practice is blessed by FCCs, the telemarketers will offer money to telephone providers to allow them to call directly their customers' voicemails.
This needs to be publicized: should this actually happen, and one finds themselves on the receiving end of voicemail spam: complain to your telephone provider. If they play stupid, and they refuse to block the voicespam, fire them, and make sure explain to them why you are firing them.
If the folks at Mozilla are listening, this is a golden opportunity to score some brownie points.
It should be possible for a browser to detect when a click on an anchor tag gets intercepted by a javascript onclick that goes to a completely different URL, and for the browser to throw a big fat warning instead.
Of course, nobody would expect for Chrome to do anything like this, since Google depends on this hostile and abusive practice for generating ad click revenue. But I would think that this would be a value tool for blocking potential exploits, and a thumb in the eye of Google.
Can't really say much more than that: you certainly can. There's a trick to "navigating ageism": simply refuse to be a victim. You're only a victim of ageism if you give yourself the permission to be one.
I'm hitting 50 pretty soon. I'm old enough to fully acknowledge that I have no idea what would happen tomorrow, but I have a fairly high level of confidence that my career prospects are fairly bright, for the foreseeable future and until I retire. So I know that there are places to work where one's experience one acquires with age is an asset, and not a liability.
I fully acknowledge that ageism exists in plenty of places. But I am just as well confident that there are plenty of more places where ageism does not exist. The place where I work invests significant resources in actively recruiting and hiring young skulls full of mush from nearby institutions of higher learning. Every summer we hire a bunch of co-eds for interships. Quite a few of them inevitably end up interning with us for a few summers, then graduate, and get hired.
At the same time, this place is full of beards. Quite a few folks here -- both IT and business people -- going to hit their retirement before I do. When a naming contest was held to name the conference rooms in new office space, I jokingly suggested naming them after employees with beards -- with the largest conference rooms going to the longest beards. Although this didn't happen, if it did there would be no shortage of names to pick from.
So, although every day I wake up being fully prepared for that day to be my last day at work, I believe the chances of me getting fired because I'm too old are absolutely nil.
Even if I'm wrong, or even if I get canned for other reasons, I'll simply look for a job without wringing my hands, shedding crocodile tears, and claim to be a victim of ageism. I refuse to be a victim. I will simply go look for, and find a job. That's it. If I interview and don't get the job, it matters little why, my first priority would simply be to land the next interview. That's what I'm going to focus on, instead of flagellating myself and wondering if I didn't get the job because I'm too old.
And I actually think I would avoid those places in the first place, saving myself the trouble (note to Facebook's and Google's recruiters, please stop spamming my Gmail mailbox, thanks).
I actually think that having places that overtly discriminate against older workers is a good thing. I believe that ageism is not the real problem, but it's always a symptom of some other, more deeply rooted, fundamental problem with the company. Even if they did not discriminate on age, I wouldn't probably want to work for them anyway.
Thank you Mr. Edmunds, "the head of technology from the cybercrimes division of the U.K.'s National Crime Agency" for informing the citizens of the U.K. that their "head of technology from the cybercrimes of the U.K.'s National Crime Agency" is technically incompetent, and is utterly clueless on the subject matter he's blathering about.
There's nothing about SPF, Dmarc, or DKIM, that magically identifies the attached email as spam or not. There is no such tag in the email that identifies it as such. All that those technologies do is establish, in varying degrees of certainty, that the purported sender of the email is who it claims to be. Which, obviously, has nothing to do with spam.
As Benny Hill would've said: BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG deal...
More than half of the crap in my spam folder has DKIM headers. I have SPF validation turned on. More than three quarters of the spam in my folder passes SPF checks. That pretty much there makes Mr. Edmunds look like a bloody moron. The only fact that they establish is its proven sender's domain name.
SO FUCKING WHAT? Did someone drop this moron in his head, as a child, or what? Is it too much for that knucklehead to comprehend that anyone can register a new domain, establish valid DKIM and SPF keys, to authenticate the domain, that start spewing spam, non-stop, from it? And every last drop of that spam will pass every SPF, DKIM, and alphabet soup that he throws at it. It is true that some portion of the spam from hijacked and hacked zombies will fail SPF/DKIM validation. But this will fail, by far, to be the complete solution for spam, unlike what that knucklehead claims. Is this really so complicated to understand?
Your second case is a red herring.
Turner was not "hiding in the bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas", as you implied. Did you watch the video?
Turner was plainly standing, out in the open, on a public sidewalk. He was clearly unarmed, and posed no threat. All he had was a camera, and all he was doing was filming.
It might be reasonable for the police to come out and try to talk to him. But do you believe that, under these circumstances, it was reasonable to handcuff him, throw him in a police car on a hot day, with the windows rolled up, supposedly based on some bogus law that the cops pulled out of their ass, right that very minute?
It is now beyond dispute that Turner did not violate any law. The appeals court has ruled that. Furthermore, the appeals court has ruled that Turner was arrested. This is not arguable, either. Did you read the court's decision? The court's decision is very reasonable, in that regard: when you get handcuffed, that means you are under arrest. Plain and simple. It is now an established fact, that Turner will no longer need to prove, when he goes back to the trial court (the appeals court reversed most of the trial court's decision, so the whole thing goes back for further legal proceedings). He was arrested by the cops. For standing on a public sidewalk, for filming a police station. Neither will Turner has to prove that he did not break any laws. That was a part of the appellate court's decision too. Of course, one never has to prove that, when being charged with a crime, but it is Turner who's suing the cops, claiming that he did not break any laws, so he had to prove that, and the appellate court now agreed with him.
But, going back to the subject matter at hand. Do you believe that the cops were in the right, arresting a man standing in plain sight, on a public sidewalk, completely unarmed, simply for filming a police station?
The first movie rightfully deserves to be preserved in the Library of Congress. It is part of the American culture, and history. But, having said that, I have a confession to make:
The movie simply has not aged well. The last time I watched it on DVD, a few years ago, I decided never to watch it again. Now, that I'm much older, the movie looks rather simplistic and rough; and I would rather remember the movie the way I saw it, with much younger eyes and a less crtitical brain. These days, Darth Vader's initial entrance makes him look like a cartoonish villain. Luke playing with a starfighter, in one of his first scenes, is cringe-worthy. Ditto for the scene where he drools over the hologram Leia. C3PO's stumbling around ...just doesn't work for me the way it used to.
To state the obvious: the 4K version is nothing more than a pathetic, utterly pathetic money grab. And nothing more. That should be fairly obvious to anyone. I can't think of any possible value that four thousand pixels will bring to that movie. I just have a bad feeling about this...
How old is deltarpm? I'm sure that deb packages must have something analogous. The funny thing is there has been some chatter on fedora-devel about removing delta rpms. Supposedly it's no longer considered useful anymore. Don't recall what's the status on that.
Get one of those "USB powerbank"s.
They're dirt cheap. If you don't know what they are, they are one or two 16850 LI-ion cells, a mini-USB port, and a USB-A port. The mini-USB port is used to charge the cells in the powerbank, and then you can plug your gadgets into the USB-A port, to charge them later.
Use the powerbank to suck the power from a public port first, then plug in your devices. The downside is that the whole process takes longer. The upside is that all you're risking is blowing up your powerbank. That sucks, but as I said, they're dirt cheap, and you just get another one.
Many years ago I wrote a simple webmail server. My email address wasn't even on the login screen, just my company name. There have been more than one occasion over the years when some customer of an internet provider that used my webmail server needed technical support, and apparently managed to Google the company name, find my email address, and ask me for a password reset, or something along those lines...
... that the Galaxy Note 7 is the hottest phone of the year!
Dunno if that could ever possibly happen, but consider the following scenario
1. A poorly administered ISP ignores the fact that it's infested with zombie DDOS proxies.
2. Google starts returning a static web page stating "Your internet provider is unable to reach Google, please contact your Internet provider for support." message, instead of their home page, for queries from that ISP's IP address ranges.
Probably just a pipe dream for a lazy Sunday afternoon.
How did removing QI charging become a "new feature"?
"Call 911/111/112?" (depending on your geographical location)
According to http://smallbusiness.chron.com/profit-margin-supermarket-22467.html, your run of the mill grocery store has a profit margin of a whopping 1%. Can you explain to me how that's supposed to pay for increasing the wages of the majority of their workforce by 100%. Labor is the biggest cost of doing business, pretty much across the board.
All similar business in the same geographical area pay generally the same wages, and so have the same general costs of doing business. As such, any business that attempts to inflate their profit margins have really only one way to do so: by increasing the price of their products. But if they were to do so, they will be immediately underpriced by their area competitors. As such, profit margins of general businesses, not just grocery stores, but all general businesses, tend to be razor thin. They can only charge a bare minimum above the cost of their products, in order to stay in business.
And we're not talking about just your cashiers in the grocery store. The companies that run the trucks that deliver the goods to the store also have to raise their minimum wage too, and will also have to increase their costs to deliver goods, which gets passed down to the grocery stores, which will also have to increase their own prices on account of that too.
The janitorial services, that send their workers to the local businesses, to clean their toilets, will also have to increase their own minimum wages too. This also translates to their direct costs, which they have no choice but to pass down to the grocery store, as their customer, who will also have to increase their product prices on account of that too.
You can come up with a myriad of examples. Do you know who really ends up paying for the $15 minimum wage? You, the helpless consumer. Always.
There's an old term for all of this. It's called "trickle-down economics". Perhaps you've heard of it. Much derided by the radical left; perhaps the term was originally poorly chosen. A better name would've been "real life".
... or whatever it's actually called. I know that the left-wing movement to drive the minimum wage up to $15/hr has a catchy name of some kind, but I fail to recall it at the moment.
The only thing this movement demonstrates is the abject failure of the US public scrool system to teach young skulls full of mesh some basic economics. Instead, they come out believing that every filthy, greedy, business owner has a money printing press in the basement. Either that, or that the only way to force the bourgeoisie fatcat to pay the proletariat a fair share, is through minimum wage legislation.
Only a complete lack of understanding of basic principles of economics could result in anyone thinking that the only thing that will happen after raising the minimum wage to $15, is that everyone will be paid $15/hr. And that nothing else, whatsoever, will change. Everything will remain exactly as they are today, except that everyone will be making $15/hr, at least. Socialist utopia.
They'll be in for a shock once they figure out that business owners are not hiding a money printing press in the basement, that they could use to pay their entry-level workers $15/hr. They simply don't have the money, and no amount of radical, left-wing socialist propaganda is going to change that. No amount of protests will have any effect on that. The only thing that the Mr. Store Owner could possibly do, at that point, is either fire their workers, or raise their prices. There are no other options. A lot of good will the $15/hr minimum wage will do for them, when they're not the ones being employed, or when a loaf bread costs $11, and a gallon of milk costs $8. But, hey, they're making a living wage now!
... is that the mysterious resident in Comcast's CEO.
... New exam rule: no wearing of wristwatches, of any kind, while taking an exam. You want to know the time left? See this big clock on the wall. This solution seems too obvious. Am I missing something?
Last time I checked, we already did.
Scratching my head here. What's the conclusion to be drawn, from these experiments? That if we don't want to gain weight, we should all move to Florida?
It seems like the only linked article is relevant to the Slashdot story immediately preceding this one...
Must be the new owners of Slashdot, working hard to correct the persistent problem the prior owners with duplicate stories getting posted, all the time. Now, the duplicate links will get posted in completely different stories, going forward!
Google had no need for Postini. Google's own spam filtering in Gmail is pretty good. Probably as best as spam filtering could be, under the circumstances. So that's one elephant in the room.
The other elephant in the room is Microsoft, with Hotmail, or Office 365, or whatever it's called these days. I don't have any firsthand exposure to that service, but from what I hear its built-in spam filtering is also fairly good.
Big email providers like that have no need to use an external, third party spam filtering service, since they have the technology, and the scale, to implement it in house. Organizations that outsource their email service to these elephants get spam filtering as part of their service and, again, have little need for a third party service.
About the only likely market for third party spam filtering services would be small to mid-range ISPs or organizations that want to run their E-mail in house. They wouldn't typically have the in-house technology to implement spam filtering, and would rely on a third party. Seems like a fairly small market to me, and with E-mail generally on a slow, steady decline there doesn't seem to be a lot of market opportunities here, for third party spam filtering services.
POP3 is a simple, basic email download protocol. Shouldn't take more than a few hours to write one from scratch. The specs are easiky available, and will serve as a good introduction to writing free software based on Internet standards.
And how exactly did you determine the state of their mind, and what they do or do not know?
"Gee, all of a sudden my mail server acquires this mysterious configuration setting that rejects mail from all IP addresses on this particular blacklist. I have absolutely no idea where it came from..."
You call it "vigilantism", I call it free speech.
So, you think you know more about someone who employs blacklisting, then they themselves. There's a word for that too. Actually two words: "arrogant elitism". You think you're smarter than everyone else, and that you know more about blacklists then the individual organizations who use them. That is, of course, a height of arrogance.
No, I'm afraid you're not smarter than everyone else. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
This phenomenon is called "free speech", perhaps you've heard of it. Anyone is free to say, on their web site, whether a particular sender's email should be accepted or rejected, and why. And it goes without saying that everyone else is free to either agree, or disagree and continue to use their own internal policy for email acceptance or rejectance.
I have found that these cries of vigilantism tend to come from those who have a peculiar belief that these so-called vigilantes have somehow hacked into million of email servers worldwide, hijacked them, and reconfigured them to reject email from the targets of those vigilantes' wrath. This is, of course, utter horseshit. The individual owners and operators of all those millions of email servers have specifically and intentionally configured their mail servers to follow the recommended mail acceptance policy of their chosen third-party blacklist. Nobody held a gun to their head, and forced them to do so. They own their email servers. They pay their electricity and bandwidth bills, and they have every right to configure them in whatever way makes them happy.
And the so-called "legal system" is 100% behind them. Fortunately, at least in the Western world, private property rights still enjoy 100% backing of the legal system. I have never read of any legal decision, that survived an appeal, which forced the owner of the email server to accept or reject email from anyone they wish, for whatever reason pleases them, and on whatever it was based on. Quite the opposite -- there's actually established case law that determined that privately-owned Internet providers are free to blacklist anyone, and for any reason, which includes third-party blacklists, which I'll be happy to cite.
That is the cold, hard truth: nobody has a civil right to email anyone, and every other privately-owned email server operator is free to refuse to accept email from anyone, for any reason. Whether it was due to their own decision, or by delegating this decision to a third-party blacklist. That delegation, after all, is still their own decision to make. Like I said, it is their email server, and they have full control of it. And it they decide to delegate some control over their email server to a third party, they are 100% within their rights to do so. And neither you, nor any other spamming parasite, can do anything about it.